Monday, June 9, 2014

Decisive final week begins

A number of polls have been released in the last few days, and they only emphasize just how important the next few days might be in deciding who will form the next government. The numbers are very close between the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives among all voters, but it is among those who will actually vote that the election will be won.

The projection has ticked back towards the Liberals since yesterday, with the party at 39.2% support, or between 38% and 43%, a gain of 1.9 points. The Tories are down 0.5 points to 36.8% (or between 35% and 40%), while the NDP is down two points to 17.6%, or between 16% and 19% support. The Greens are at 5.3%, or between 4% and 7%.

The Liberals are back up to the bare minimum for a majority government, with a four-seat gain since yesterday to 54, or between 46 and 64. The PCs are down two seats to 38, or between 30 and 50 seats. So there is a bit of overlap between the two parties. The NDP is down two seats to 15, or between 8 and 16 seats.

Support for the New Democrats is, perhaps, the wildcard of this election. It is less consequential for the NDP than it is for the other parties, however. If the NDP ends up below 20%, the Liberals will likely prevail even with a vote deficit against the Tories. But if the NDP is over 25%, the Liberals stand little chance. But where will the party end up?

When you look at these three polls, the latest from these three firms, there is little real divergence on the two main parties. The margins are very close - a tie according to Ipsos and EKOS, a two-point lead for the Liberals according to Forum. Support for the Liberals stands at between 35% and 39%, the PCs between 35% and 37%. Those are pretty clear numbers.

But support for the NDP is another thing entirely. The IVR pollsters (EKOS and Forum) give the party just 17% or 18% support, while Ipsos (online) gives them 26%. That is a huge difference, and one that is extremely important for the seat outcome. The Liberals have a much better chance of winning with the numbers laid out by Forum and EKOS than they do with those of Ipsos.

It should be noted that throughout this campaign Ipsos has been on the high side for the NDP and EKOS/Forum on the low side, so we may be seeing some methodological bias at play here.

Can the results of the past few elections provide any guide for us? Every pollster over-estimated the New Democrats in both the 2007 and 2011 elections, by between 0.2 and 3.3 points. In 2011, two of the final polls were done online (Angus Reid and Abacus), two were done via the telephone with live-callers (Ipsos and Nanos), and two were down via IVR (Forum and EKOS).

The online polls over-estimated the NDP the most, by an average of 2.3 points. The telephone polls over-estimated the New Democrats by 1.4 points, while the IVR polls over-estimated the party by just 0.5 points. If something similar happens again in 2014 (and past performance is by no means something that remains constant going forward) we could expect Forum and EKOS to have the NDP's support closer to the mark. But is that realistic at 17% or 18%?

In terms of trends, all of the change between these new polls and the last time these firms were in the field at around the same period shows general stability.

The estimates by EKOS and Ipsos of likely voters is even more confusing, since they portray two starkly different outcomes. Again, I've included Forum for comparison.

Ipsos gives the Tories a significant lead among likely voters with 40% to 32% support, with the NDP still holding its own at 24%. EKOS, however, gives the Liberals the edge with 42% to 35%, with the NDP at only 14% support. That is extremely low, and would be the worst performance by the party since 1999.

Oddly, Forum's turnout-adjusted numbers seem to split the difference (Abacus Data's numbers have generally done the same, we'll hear from them later today). If this pattern holds through to election day, either Forum and Abacus will land close to the mark while both EKOS and Ipsos miss, or one of the last two will nail it and put everyone else to shame (the middle-of-the-road pollsters to a lesser extent).

But we should hear from every pollster again before Election Day, so perhaps we will see some convergence. Or, someone will be in for a rough night on Thursday.

Riding polls
The Star published the numbers from a series of 18 riding polls conducted by Forum in some swing ridings (a few did not make it on the last that would have been interesting). I've broken them down by region below to see if we can discern any patterns - but we should note that all of these riding polls were conducted before the debate.

In the Toronto/905 region, we can see that the Liberals are looking rather strong. They looked good against the PCs in Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Mississauga-Erindale, Pickering-Scarborough East, and St. Catharines, while they were narrowly edging out the Tories in Brampton-Springdale and Burlington. This generally backs-up the decent polling numbers the Liberals have been putting up in the GTA.

In the downtown core where the Liberals are facing off against the NDP, the races were close but they nevertheless held the advantage: six points in Davenport and one point in Trinity-Spadina. The NDP, however, looked to be in a good position to retain Niagara Falls.

The polling numbers in the four southwest ridings seem to give some credence to the better-than-expected support levels of the Liberals in the southwest. They were ahead in Cambridge, narrowly led the NDP in Kitchener-Waterloo, and were competitive in London West and Windsor West. The PCs were not doing as well as they could have, suggesting that the Tories' support in the southwest may be concentrated outside of the urban centres more than the party needs it to be.

In the north, the NDP was leading in Sudbury while the Liberals were ahead in Thunder Bay-Atikokan. In eastern Ontario, the races were very, very close between the PCs and Liberals, with the NDP a non-factor.

Did the debate shift any of these? It is hard to tell since the polls have been inconclusive on the effects of the debate, apart from a possible uptick for the PCs. This means the party may have moved ahead in ridings like Ottawa South, London West, Brampton-Springdale, and Burlington. But local candidates can mean a lot as well, particularly in ridings like Ottawa South and London West that held by-elections recently. There could be many very close races on election night.

Programming note: the next update on Tuesday will be a little later than usual. On Wednesday, I will probably save my update until the very end of the day, after all of the last polls of the campaign are published.

The Forum riding results seem curious to me. In particular, Cambridge is a fairly conservative community and so it seems doubtful they would be so negative on their current incumbent. KW is primarily Waterloo, and so I can easily see the Conservatives not being strong there, but I am doubtful that the Liberals will really gain that seat from Fife. It is disappointing they stated that this was a Liberal given that it was within the margin of error (and only on a 95% confidence level, at that!).

The ranges take into account the possibility that the polls will be wrong. My point is not to make a bet or a prediction or a guess, but to give readers reasonable expectations of possible outcomes, based on what the polls are saying and the past performances of the polls.

how have you been taking into account the fact that Ipsos always shows the green party support at 0, when everyone else is at 6-7%. to me that would raise serious questions of the accuracy of their polls

I know what you mean, BC. I think what Eric is saying is that he is not trying to emulate the 538 blog in the US. Frustration is understandable however since he's named this blog 308.com but there you go. to each his own. Eric is not trying to emulate Nate Silver. He is taking a more open-ended approach. He may also be undermined by the relative lack of polling data points compared with the US. That said, I find this whole polling analysis to be unsatisfying.

Ryan - Ipsos does not show the Greens at 0%, they show support for "Others" at 5%, or whatever it is. That includes the Greens. I merely assume 1% of that is for legitimate others, the rest for the Greens.

As a self-identified moderate conservative I am a bit surprised at the visceral hatred directed at Hudak.

I understand that he is not charismatic and can sometimes seem fake, but how is this different from Stephen Harper?

The man has not advanced any real social conservative agenda that I am aware of. Quite the contrary, his focus seems well placed on the economy. Where is the part that is supposed to scare or upset me??

He has made strides in statesmanship these past three years, and seems more than capable of growing into the Premiership.

Most importantly he is the only leader telling the truth about the dire situation this province is in with regards to the debt.

A credit downgrade will be an inevitable consequence of another Liberal government. I wonder how many small c conservatives here think Hudak could not produce a better budget than the most recent offering from the Liberals. Tracking more leftwards seems crazy to me in this circumstance. The interest on the debt is already the 3rd largest item on the budget. Who wants it to become number two?

Hudak may not be trustworthy or lovable, but I'm not marrying the guy. I just want him to tack our sails in the right direction, and I believe he can do so.

PM Harper was once the boogieman, but conservative minded people saw through that smoke screen to give him a chance... to great effect. The Ontario Liberals have now become just as corrupt as their Federal counterparts were then. Will no moderates stand with me on the 12th to take our provinces future back?

Not to be overly dramatic but I believe this election to be a turning point. I can feel our province circling the bowl, and debt spiraling out of control. Who do you think best equipped to fix it?

I always urge people to vote their conscience. I simply can't understand how anyone could cheer-lead for the current cesspool of a government over someone who has never been given a chance.

How many billion dollar scandals will it take to kick these scam artists out? I know my answer. I hope my fellow Ontarians take a rational look at the situation, and do what is right. For our sake, and for future generations.

If Hudak were really honest he'd promise to end JK and roll back kindergarten to a half day. If he were brutally honest he'd merge separate and public school boards even if he kept separate schools. Getting rid of the dual administrations would save untold millions.

I agree that the deficit and debt are big problems that MUST be dealt with. So are the green energy plans and shy high electricity rates foisted on us by the Liberals.

Companies are less likely to locate in a jurisdiction that has high electricity rates. We must attract new manufacturing. However the way to do so is not to lower the corporate tax rate by 30% and compete against ourselves or to turn ON into a right to work province. Harper was bright enough to understand that the route to power is through the centre. Harper moderated the platform of the Conservatives. Hudak has radicalised that of the PC's. I don't trust him. It is that simple. Nor do I believe on balance that his policies would do anything more than widen the gap between rich and poor. He is anti union to a fault. I'm forced to vote against him when I would very much like to join you in turfing out the Liberals.

Thanks for the update, AJR. Vote anything other than Conservative, and the place will turn into Greece, we'll all be out in the streets eating each other for sustenance, and there will be a plague of locusts o'er the land (again). Plus ca change...

The problem with arguing for a contemporary conservative as a saviour to slay the debt is that the track record doesn't bear this out. The cuts to government get cancelled out, or worse, by senseless tax cuts. In my opinion. You can see, though, how Hudak as the fiscally-responsible option isn't as cut-and-dried as you believe it is.

Though I'm no fan of any particular party, B.C., Alberta, & Quebec have all recently shown a desire for a middle-of-the-road, don't-rock-the-boat governance. Even if those governing parties are tired and arguably ... maybe corrupt isn't exactly accurate ... maybe feckless in the face of democratic entropy?

The reason why Hudak is so demonised is best described by the old adage; insults are the last refuge of the out argued. The Wynne-Horwath Government are out of ideas and what ideas they do have are ill-thought out. So, they distract and turn the media's attention toward their opponent Mr. Hudak by calling him mean names.

Some on the left think spending bought North America out of the Great Depression but, while capital expenditure on infrastructure such as the Hoover Dam helped America recover the Second World War also played a leading if not determinant role. I'm not calling for a war to lift Ontario out of its economic malaise just pointing out that government spending alone is unlikely to lift the economy from the doldrums.

People often commend the Chretien-Martin diarchy as the ultimate example of economic and fiscal leadership but, Konrad Yakabushi made a good point in today's Globe: the economic success of those years rested on a low dollar policy that resulted in Ontario manufacturing failing to invest in equipment and technology (even while they were making karge profits) that would have made their businesses more productive. We see the result today, Ontario is becoming less productive and with a high dollar less competitive vis a vis the global competition.

The saddest part of the whole campaign has been Wynne's insistence that she will stand up and make sure Ontario's receives equalization payments! That is not an economic plan-it is a cry for help. Time to put Ms. Wynne out of her misery and turf her from office!

First of all AJR, excuse me for saying this, but you are not a moderate conservative in Ontario. You are an American moderate conservative which is completely different. You are a right wing conservative and the fact that you don't understand that you mis-identify yourself, is the one of the biggest problems for Hudak and the conservatives right now.

This should have been a cake walk and an extremely easy majority for PC's, but they listened to self-identified "moderate" Conservatives, and this is the predicament they're in. As a real moderate Ontario conservative I know strong cuts need to be made. But to say you're going to cut teachers in 2014? What, do you think there are no voters with kids? You don't think classes are already way too large for a modern country and have been increased ridiculously already? Talk about bring completely out out of touch with all the cuts that have already happened to teachers in Ontario in education. By throwing down this absolutely strange 100,000/1,000,000 illogical voodoo math, Hudak blew up an easy victory. Considering teachers went from 6 and 8 to 7 and 8 already, to even think about cutting any teachers now, is really the worst idea ever thought by any conservative leader. If he would have said I'm cutting 120 000 jobs but I'm not cutting teachers and only limited cuts in health, right now he's far out in front instead of being behind. But he listened to people who self identify themselves as so called "moderate" conservatives, instead of listening to real moderate conservatives living in the real world, and this is what you've got. If Hudak said cuts will be made but I will not cut teachers, this is easily over right now.

In short, you are part the problem and the reason why Wynne is doing so well, and until real moderate Conservatives living in the real world step and put people like you in line, the PC's may not form a majority government in Ontario for a very long time.. You're living on Tea Party theories that have proven they don't work for most of the voters, around the world.

As was reported just a week or two ago, Hudak consulted with members of the Tea Party... not quite the epitome of moderate conservativism (which I'd equate with Bill Davis - there hasn't been a moderate Ontario Conservative leader since)

I have truly never understood when conservatives want to merge school boards based on the argument that it would save money. Take 30 seconds and think: would we all be better off if we merged the major grocery chains into one chain to reduce administrative costs?

This mantra that; if you "support Hudak "you're not a moderate conservative" is shameful and wrong.

If you support Justin Trudeau does that make you ineligible to be a Catholic? His policies would certainly indicate so. Should all Catholics who vote for the Liberal party expect to be excommunicated? Or is a vote for the Liberal party enough to self-excommunicate?

If someone "consults" with a Tea Party member that does not equate with holding the same views or beliefs much less implementing those views or policies. To assume that it does is poor logic! Can we assume Ms. Wynne is a socialist because she has spoken to Ms. Horwath? Under the logic of 11matt11, chirumenga and Peter that is the result. Can we assume the NDP is as corrupt as the OLP because Horwath has spoken with Ms. Wynne in the past? 11matt11, Peter and chirumenga would say that is a valid conclusion!

The truth of the matter; no one, much less poor spellers and poor grammarians, would be able to identify a progressive conservative from a dipper from a green supporter from a liberal if they met on the street. So to draw unfounded conclusions based on scant evidence is insulting and rude.

Insults are the last bastion of the out argued and these attacks demonstrate why the spendthrift, self-serving Ontario Liberals need to be removed from office. They are out of ideas-their only political weapon left is increasingly personal and personalised attacks!

If so called "progressives" are making such attacks in the final days of the campaign they know the jig is up and the Liberals are headed for defeat.

I am glad you have brought low turn out up in a couple posts you have written. It is a very serious problem. I don't believe a change in the electoral system would improve turn out but, I do think improved voter education especially among immigrants many of whom especially if originally from countries where political and electoral corruption are common may hold cynical views towards voting, politicians and elections in general, and perhaps different methods of voting such as internet voting should be investigated (maybe we could send girl guides out with ballot boxes when they sell their cookies door-to-door). At a certain point low turn out will hurt governmental legitimacy at 48% turn out last election and perhaps even lower this election we are fast approaching that point.

Also the weather forecast calls for rain in most of the province on Thursday, which will probably reduce election day turnout. I wonder whether low voter turnout has a consistent tendency to favour one party or another. I was guessing that the PCs benefit from low turnout and the Liberals benefit if turnout is high but I don't know.

no we don't, you can't compare overall voters from 2011 advance polls and this years as 2011 ran for 10 days while this years only went for 7 days. if you look at the daily average for voters it is actually an increase of 33% each day, how would that have played out if this year went 10 days too.

EKOS has a likely voter model (http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/06/modest-listing-in-wynnes-ship-seems-to-have-corrected/) that includes an 'emotional engagement' component. EKOS asks the question:"When thinking about Kathleen Wynne's Liberal government, which of the following emotions best describes how you feel?"

The model awards half a point for Angry and half a point for each of Happy or Hopeful. If you are trying to argue that more emotional voters (angry, happy) are more likely to vote than less emotional ones (hopeful, discouraged), that might be true. But to give points for Hopeful but not Discouraged REALLY skews the likely voter model towards the Liberals, since 80% of Hopeful voters support the Liberals. That accounts for the Liberals getting 35.9% of committed voters, but 42.2% of likely voters. If you removed 'hopefuls' from the model, then EKOS would probably show the Tories leading.

EKOS listened to me and changed their likely voter model to remove 'happys'. I think they should have removed 'hopefuls' instead, since 'happy' is the stronger emotion, but I don't think they wanted to show the Tories in the lead. To admit such a big mistake two days before the election would be a hit to their credibility.

Because I watch little or no Canadian television I've not seen the political ads on that media. However I do read print media and I'm not convinced the Liberals are running a smart campaign. This fear and loathing at the end of the campaign is a little much and looks panicky.

I do wish Warren Kinsella were running the campaign rather than David Herle.

My prediction is a minority government. I have no idea who will form that government.

I never appreciate people I don't know telling me what I think. It is presumptuous to say the least. If you know what my politics are, then I'd invite you to share with me what my views are on SSM, abortion, gun control, etc. It is a sad tactic to project the worst assumptions onto anyone who disagrees with you politically.

I'm not shy about stating what I believe for the record. I consider myself to the left of Obama, and was upset when he sold out the "public option" to the insurance companies before any legislation was even conceived. Does that sound like a "tea party" conservative?

As for being a moderate in Ontario... I believe that all day Kindergarten should be kept, as it is a good investment for the future. Drummond may be correct that we can't afford it now, but my view is that we can't NOT afford it now.

The real rub of it is that I have been commenting on these boards for over five years now (with a long hiatus after the 2011 federal election), so longtime 308 addicts have a good idea of where I stand. Johnny-come-latelies such as 11matt11 probably don't realize that I have a long history of comments being critical of Harper, and of socially liberal positions. I'd invite any such doubters to go into the archives and see for themselves.

This is one of the reasons that I would never question Earl's identification as a moderate conservative. I know something of his politics through vigorous discussion, not through weak-sauce projection and false assumptions.

The main point is that I have not made any comment on policy that would lead one to assume that I am far-right in any country or province. Those who do so assume have a myopic worldview IMHO where political differences become black/white good vs.evil stuff.

It says alot more about you than about me. It also shows the weakness of your position if such a strawman is necessary.

I'll ask again... What part of Hudaks proposals is supposed to scare or upset me (as a moderate conservative)?

Check out our fiscal situation. That is plenty "real world" enough for me.

I had almost forgotten that at one time (spring 2009) I won the oppourtunity to write a guest post for 308. I believe this was the prize for correctly predicting a hockey game or tournament. (any more specific info would be appreciated if you can easily recall Eric)

What did my far-right self write about with my 15 minutes? The dangers of hidden derivative deals to the world economy.

Not exactly exciting stuff for any but the wonkiest wonk, but something I felt passionate enough about to try and spread the word.

My centrist credibility needs no further defending. It's all on record in black and white.

I'd thank others to not be so quick to judge strangers, when they have no knowledge of their positions.

AJR79 you are a moderate conservative. The man you support isn't. Cutting Educational Assistants and Early childhood educators when they are needed to run classrooms in our schools of today is a very bad idea, Don Drummond or not..

I'm 63 and the schools of today bear no resemblance to the schools of my youth. To begin with today's schools are filled with kids that we simply didn't see when I went to school. There are mentally and physically handicapped kids in every grade and subject. There are very emotional troubled kids in every grade and in every school. At the same time a teacher can no longer discipline kids. Raising your voice or saying that a kid did something stupid is verboten. Do that and some parent will have you up before the College of Teachers.

Cutting the corporate tax rate by ***30%*** while cutting cutting subsidies to business might seem like a smart idea. However some business can take their business elsewhere. For jobs in auto manufacturing we compete with 50 States south of the border and Mexico who are only too willing to give tax breaks and grants to auto makers. If we lose our domestic auto industry we will eventually lose our parts industry as well. ON already has one of the lowest tax rates in NA when both federal and provincial rates are taken into consideration.

Although Hudak has pulled back from his promise to make ON a "Right to Work Province", I personally don't trust him to keep that promise if he wins a majority. Nor do I trust him to be fair with public sector workers.

Actually I think Hudak has some good ideas. His ideas around apprenticeships are excellent. So are his ideas around arbitration for police and fire fighters, at least as I understand them.

Finally we come to the "Million Jobs Plan". It has been shown to be the 125,000 jobs plan. the arithmetic is faulty, as surely you must know. That he let something as fundamental as that slip through makes me question his competence.

That's why in the end this moderate conservative is not supporting Tim Hudak

As far as I know Hudak has moderated the right to work "white paper" (which was actually a green paper). I don't believe he'd get that through the house either (or even try).

I believe in Unions. They brought us the weekend and right to refuse unsafe work. I also believe that when unions gain too much influence they can become corrupt and self-serving power structures themselves. They dabble in politics with members money, some which surely disagree with the leaderships politics. Large unions have many disagreeable aspects to them. They are not accountable to the people of Ontario.

This Liberal government is too corrupt to lead any further IMO. Ms.Wynne is a smart lady with some interesting ideas, but she has not convinced me that she has any real answers for the problems at hand, or even a good grasp of them. That budget was mostly awful.

I predict that Hudak will win a weak plurality of seats, and that the Liberals and NDP will likely form a coalition government, perhaps foreshadowing the 2015 federal election. This could be really interesting if I'm right.

To be clear; I believe that a coalition government is legitimate if it's leaders do not explicitly rule it out.As far as I'm aware, none of them have.

Nobody today is a Bill Davis Conservative. Bill Davis has not run for office since 1981! Nobody voting today has the option of voting for Bill Davis or "Bill Davis Progressive Conservatives" for the simple reason they no longer exist-that time has passed!

If you are a provincial Conservative today you support the Progressive Conservative party of 2014 and at least begrudgingly support the leadership of Tim Hudak. If you can not support that minimum of standards so be it but, don't claim to be something you are not; you may be a progressive conservative but, you are not a Progressive Conservative.

Wow the polls today are all over the map, just crazy. The NDP tweeted that they are now somehow tied with Libs in Likely voter support. I gotta think Ipsos is on someone's payroll, because that is just ridiculous.

Eric, have you considered only using eligible voter numbers and weighting "likely" voters yourself? I bet you could do it, with different weights based on IVR, Telephone, or internet results.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.